STID will cross the $300 million dollar mark this weekend (global total) and by the end of its run, will probably make $400-$500 million. This will make it the most successful Trek movie ever (bar the possible exception of TMP).

Crikey - it's going to beat Star Trek 09's global gross and do rather nicely, thank you very much.

Click to expand...

I've used a few inflation calculators, and TMP's 1979 worldwide take of $139,000,000 is worth roughly $433,000,000 in today's money. I realise there are many other factors to take into account, but I do think the comparison is a fair guide.

Based on that, STID has a good shot at becoming the most successful Trek movie - when judged by the final dollar tally at least.

Click to expand...

No, it's not a fair guide. In 1979, there were no crappy downloadable cam versions that legions of people watch instead of going to the cinema... There wasn't even home video, so the only way to see TMP was in the cinema (and thereafter, hoping it would air on television in about 3 to 4 years at minimum)... Today, so many people will think: 'I'll check it out when it comes out on DVD/blu ray/ whatever'. I think when you take that into account, the whole 'unadjusted gross' check of films that were released prior to the home cinema age is very flawed...

No, it's not a fair guide. In 1979, there were no crappy downloadable cam versions that legions of people watch instead of going to the cinema... There wasn't even home video, so the only way to see TMP was in the cinema (and thereafter, hoping it would air on television in about 3 to 4 years at minimum)... Today, so many people will think: 'I'll check it out when it comes out on DVD/blu ray/ whatever'. I think when you take that into account, the whole 'unadjusted gross' check of films that were released prior to the home cinema age is very flawed...

Click to expand...

Agreed. I think ST09 and STID gross can only be compared with any Trek movie from TUC/GENS onward.

In 1979-1989 the population was smaller but there was less channels on TV, no internet, no DVD, no Blu-Ray, no PPV, no piracy and movies made their money over several months rather than several weeks. I know VHS started coming in during the mid 80s but it was only in the early-mid 90s that they were in every household I think.

Click to expand...

Well, I did say there were other factors to take into account. I absolutely loved the movie, and want it to succeed as much as anyone. Personally, I believe it'll sail into the black without any problems.

VHS came out in the mid-1970s. There was piracy then - every VHS tape (film or episode) came equipped with a warning against this practice. Movies today can earn their money over months - look at Avatar.

When I read about Hollywood today, the word I keep seeing is "safe". The corporations want a product that is safe, doesn't offend major investors, and is easily translatable for any audience member. Corporations will fund focus groups to see what they want and what they don't want. I feel there is an expectation placed on the directors, producers, and writers to respect what the focus groups and investors demand, and to make every effort to meet these demands.

One of the reasons I have been reading for the greater emphasis on international markets is that the sale of physical copies of the movies is declining, as people are increasingly relying on online streaming. This paradigm is occurring as well in the music and video game industries.

Some franchises work better than others in this new world. Comic book movies are an exceptionally good case of a successful model. Comic book movies aren't required to change their fundamental nature to work in this new world. Characters like Iron Man and Superman are the main draw to these movies. For other franchises, like Star Trek, they have to fundamentally change their nature. Focus groups see this franchise as a science heavy talky where people wear outlandish costumes and speak in meaningless gibberish. Star Trek was about characters being philosophical and exploring the human condition, using science that was credible - a criteria established by Roddenberry at the onset of the franchise, and solving issues through diplomacy and negotiation, and occasionally, with weapons. This doesn't translate well. (I think it's possible to create a film that does all three. For the film to be successful, well, I think that will require an exceptionally good director and talented screen writers.) So, what we see on the screen is what Paramount believes will be interpreted by overseas audiences favorably, and, in the process, the film alienated some of the hardcore fans. So, the franchise is struggling.

I see the situation here as this. There is a girl. Some adore this girl near and far, and will accept her flaws without questioning. They are in love with her. Others look at this girl, and think she's homely, and wonder what her adorers see in her. Admiral Buzzkill I place in the former, and I place myself in the latter. There is no middle ground.

I want and desire for people to be happy, and I think having this film be successful - to attain at least $380 million - will make Admiral Buzzill happy. So, I'm rooting for him and others like him.

the fact remains that hardcore fans are mostly older and many of them have problems with this movie and JJ-Trek in general. And they're vociferous to boot.

That's the IMAGE. It's also easily provable via the IMDB board. It's been in the pits ever since we knew for sure that Cumberbatch plays Khan.

Click to expand...

Yet for all practical purposes those Trek fans are sure box office dollars. No one is going to come out and claim that its "the casual fan that has driven the box office take to $160 million, if only we could reel in some of the hard core Trek fans". A lot of trek fans act like a gaggle of old women who like to b*tch about everything just for the sake of b*tching. *yawn*

The problem with going after the juveniles is that unlike all those other comic book franchises, Trek does not have a superman/superbeing at its heart.

Click to expand...

Superhero stories are also not true science fiction. While superheros appeal much more to males than females, science fiction has never been a popular genre with women and girls. And its not like comic books are popular with juveniles these days either. The comic industry is lingering on its way to a slow death. Kids these days are either exposed to superheros on TV or in the theaters, comics are a non-entity in today's youth culture.

And the "Trekness" you speak of is in direct opposition to what brings those other franchises their mullah: casual and willful destruction of life and property.

That is in direct contrast to what Trek has always been and should be.

Click to expand...

I'm sure 10 Trek fans can have 10 different interpretations of what defines "Trekness" (see the old woman comment previously). However, there has always been a great deal of destruction in the Star Trek Universe. This is a key component of much of the drama within the series. What is best for Star Trek is whatever increases its popularity and chances of survival. Movies obviously cannot have the same storylines as a series as they need to be grander in spectacle and tension to justify the investment. They also need to resolve in the equivalent of 2 - 2 1/2 episodes where a series can drag out a story arc over a season or more.

Someone above had wrote that VHS started coming in sometime in the mid-1980s. I responded as I did.

The first commercial VHS recorder sold in the United States happen in 1977. In 1980, Paramount released the first episodes of TOS onto VHS. The major competitor to VHS was Beta-Max. By the mid-1980s, VHS had won the battle.

No, it's not a fair guide. In 1979, there were no crappy downloadable cam versions that legions of people watch instead of going to the cinema... There wasn't even home video, so the only way to see TMP was in the cinema (and thereafter, hoping it would air on television in about 3 to 4 years at minimum)... Today, so many people will think: 'I'll check it out when it comes out on DVD/blu ray/ whatever'. I think when you take that into account, the whole 'unadjusted gross' check of films that were released prior to the home cinema age is very flawed...

Click to expand...

Agreed. I think ST09 and STID gross can only be compared with any Trek movie from TUC/GENS onward.

In 1979-1989 the population was smaller but there was less channels on TV, no internet, no DVD, no Blu-Ray, no PPV, no piracy and movies made their money over several months rather than several weeks. I know VHS started coming in during the mid 80s but it was only in the early-mid 90s that they were in every household I think.

Click to expand...

If you guys think that there was literally no piracy in the 1970's and 1980's, then you don't know what you're talking about.

If there were more of the Admiral Buzzkill-type fans, this film wouldn't be where it is profit-wise. Unfortunately, there are not.

Click to expand...

There are are tens of millions more normal people who just want to be entertained than there are die-hard trekkies, so your reasoning is flawed at the start.

In fact, it's the die-hards who are - with extremely rare exception - guaranteed to see this thing more than once, and most have.

The film needs to make $380 million to be successful.

Click to expand...

No.

The movie's a guaranteed success for Paramount, though not as successful as they'd hoped. As a consequence there will be another one in 2016. There are plenty of folks who pay to see these, a great many more than ever bothered with oldTrek.

A lot of us (like me) are old enough to remember how this actually went down. Just because VCRs existed in the late 70s doesn't mean a lot of people had them. It was the same with the first wave of home computers. They were pricey and there were only a small number of early-adopters.

VCRs didn't begin to get affordable until the early 80s, like 82-84. Also, commercial tapes were sold for $79+ in the early days. That was a lot of money then. The home video market only took off when the industry finally decided to lower prices to around $30. The video rental boom soon followed. Many films were held back from home video for a long time as well. Star Wars being the most famous example.

The first tape I actually bought was Wrath of Khan, and I darn near wore it out.

Someone above had wrote that VHS started coming in sometime in the mid-1980s. I responded as I did.

The first commercial VHS recorder sold in the United States happen in 1977. In 1980, Paramount released the first episodes of TOS onto VHS. The major competitor to VHS was Beta-Max. By the mid-1980s, VHS had won the battle.

A lot of us (like me) are old enough to remember how this actually went down. Just because VCRs existed in the late 70s doesn't mean a lot of people had them. It was the same with the first wave of home computers. They were pricey and there were only a small number of early-adopters.

VCRs didn't begin to get affordable until the early 80s, like 82-84. Also, commercial tapes were sold for $79+ in the early days. That was a lot of money then. The home video market only took off when the industry finally decided to lower prices to around $30. The video rental boom soon followed. Many films were held back from home video for a long time as well. Star Wars being the most famous example.

I'm keeping telling that I'm surprised with the good box office in Brazil with previews in IMAX. I don´t have numbers, but we had previews on May 17th, 25th, 30th and it continues grossing good, several theaters filled. I think Brazil can reach $6 million or more (Star Trek - 1.907 million in 2009) with IMAX. The premiere is in 2-D on june 14th.

The marketing here is strong with interviews (JJ, Karl Urban, Zoe speaking in portuguese and Pine and Zach) on Fantastic - Rede Globo, program with the largest audience. I think we'll have good box office, though many people like Fast and furious, and Wolverine.

There was a lot of pirated stuff on video by '83, though. I remember watching crappy copies of both TWOK and E.T. at a party in the summer of that year. They were nearly unwatchable, but there was a novelty to it.

Also, commercial tapes were sold for $79+ in the early days. That was a lot of money then. The home video market only took off when the industry finally decided to lower prices to around $30.

Click to expand...

In fact, in the USA, it was "ST II: The Wrath of Khan" that broke the $79 threshold and came out at the ridiculously low $29. IIRC, a chain of pizza restaurants offered Paramount Home Video's latest release, ST II, for that low price - and this opened the floodgates.

Here in Australia, we followed the excitement with great interest. I already had my Beta copies of ST:TMP and "Barbarella" (both were $AU 79). ST II was due soon, but when it arrived it was also $AU 79. I organised a bulk purchase at my local video shop and got six sell-thru copies at a 15% discount.

A few weeks/months later, Australian "Pizza Hut" restaurants had a special offer: selling Paramount's "Raiders of the Lost Ark" for $AU 29! How frustrating! Missed it by one. The prices of all sell-thru videos in Australia started dropping across the board.

Here in Brazil, unfortunately, piracy is strong, but in IMAX is simply the best and the film is being sold with low quality (CAM), it's worth buying it. As the film has not been released on DVD, until the premiere june 14th, I think many people will see the movie first. The price is good. I will take 03 friends of mine who don´t know about Star Trek.

There was some piracy back then, but it didn't compare to the mass piracy you have now.

Click to expand...

Nah. Reality check.

As soon as video stores appeared, there was video piracy on a "mass" scale. That was the late 1970's. Any bloke with two VCR's could copy a movie illegally. Or, any one bloke and his buddy, who each had their own.

Naturally, industrial machines could make much better copies. To assert that all tapes on all shelves in all stores across the country were legal is simply laughable. Same as today, with DVD's.

The piracy of movies still in the theaters was the bleeding edge. I saw a guy get caught with a tripod set up in the theater at the end of the first run of The Empire Strikes Back, when the crowds had thinned out. That was 1980. That the theater was even alert to that should tell you something.

If anything has changed today, it's just that the cost of making, keeping, and distributing good copies has dropped dramatically. What haven't changed are people's proclivities.

ETA: I agree with what mos6507 and Buzzkill said about price and availability. I remember, too, I was there.

Star Trek was about characters being philosophical and exploring the human condition, using science that was credible - a criteria established by Roddenberry at the onset of the franchise, and solving issues through diplomacy and negotiation, and occasionally, with weapons.

Click to expand...

"Star Trek Into Darkness".

As I mentioned in a previous thread, a friend's partner is in a world clinical trial at the moment, one of only six or eight people having special blood serum treatment on a ligament that had previously refused to repair itself. A large amount of blood was taken, reduced down to a small amount of serum, injected back into the problem site - and the ligament has been given a boost for the body to start repairing itself.

"Magic blood" in the 21st century. Imagine what it might be able to do by the 23rd?